Another Take on Glock


PDA

Jack19
February 11, 2003, 11:41 AM
Maybe I'm wrong, it's happened before, but my feeling is that Glock has nothing to do with Second Amendment rights. They are producers of a product. Period.

Gun owners, including myself, are more to blame for this latest fiasco, lately spouted as fact by 60 Minutes, as we were in 68, 86, 89, 94, 98, and at any point in the future. I think we are not cohesive as a group. Hunters don't care about CCW, non-hunters don't care about bolt-action rifles, skeet and trap shooters don't care about battle rifles. PPC doesn't care about Cowboy Action Shooting. Oversimplified? Perhaps. But, accurate in a lot of cases.

Unfortunately, Glock has chosen to support policies that come from the twisted minds of elected officials (Schumer, Fienstein, Boxer, Kennedy, et al, come immediately to mind), some really bad science, and the leftist media.

As gun owners, we need to be storming the halls of Congress, figuratively at this point, demanding that gun registration schemes, thinly disguised as a law enforcement investigative tools, be strongly opposed. Will it happen? Yeah a few of us will write, but in nowhere near the numbers needed to keep it from happening.

Does Glock need to get slapped back to reality? You bet. Will it work? Maybe. We had a huge effect on S&W, but they've never repudiated their Clinton agreement and probably won't.

The NRA needs to wake up. What rights have we gotten back? Wayne and his friends need to get a whole lot more aggressive.... right now....or we need to find a collective organization that will represent us more effectively with a lesser eye toward negotiation.

And, so does every gun owner in this country. We need to realize that a firearm is a firearm and we all hang together.... because, right now, we're hanging separately.

Just thinkin...... :(

If you enjoyed reading about "Another Take on Glock" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
alan
February 11, 2003, 11:48 AM
The pointed observations offered by Jack19 are entirely appropriate. The machinations of our NRA are indeed questionable, gun owners, it has been noted are at least sometimes, their own worst enemies, and television presentations are, at best, slanted distortions.

Having said that, the management of Glock had best realize, and quickly too, that what happened to Smith and Wesson, could happen to Glock also.

stephen_g22
February 11, 2003, 12:01 PM
United we stand, divided we fall.

If we make enemys out of our firearm producers and boycott them out of business, then the anti's win anyway.

Braz
February 11, 2003, 12:18 PM
That's not what happened with S&W, is it Steve?

New ownership, new direction, job accomplished. This is the time to be strong, not retreat and regroup. We don't want to pay for this political real-estate twice. You know this system has an extremely small chance of catching crooks. What is obvious are the chance for mistakes. We must draw the line, and hold it.

RobW
February 11, 2003, 12:23 PM
If we wouldn't have boycotted S&W, ALL the other companies would have joined the "agreement".

So, no boycott? Just "agreeeements"?

stephen_g22
February 11, 2003, 12:39 PM
When Glock enters an agreement with the goverement for ballistic fingerprinting or signs on as a supporter of a BF bill before congress, I am 100% for a boycott.

When Glock expresses supports for a HYPOTHETICAL national ballistic fingerprinting database (no legislationfor new handguns, I say wait and see.

I don't see Januzzo's statement on the same level as S&W signing an agreement with the goverment to avoid lawsuits. Januzzo wrote a letter stating Glock's strong opposition to the S&W agreement.

There is no legislation pending for ballistic fingerprinting. It was a hypothetical situation. I don't think the current situation is worthy of a boycott.

I think S&W got what they deserve. If Glock does something on the same level, then they get whatever they deserve. I just don't think it's that time yet.

YMMV

Braz
February 11, 2003, 01:03 PM
Articulate arguements, Stephen.

But I must respectfully disagree. I see your from Houston, do me a favor, will ya? Think about me the next time your scarfing at Ninfas! ;) I miss the great food, great women and great fun in Houston.

stephen_g22
February 11, 2003, 01:42 PM
My wife had some fajitas at Ninfa's this week. MMMMMM Fajitas. I guess I have it all, a great woman, great food and great fun and I spend my time arguing on the internet. What a booger eating moron I am. I should be having a cool margarita and some beef fried in lard!

I would much rather respectfully disagree than disrespectfully disagree. Over on GlockTalk one feller got so irate at a moderators position on this matter that he/she emailed the mod a virus. :cuss:

I read a quote someplace that arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you're still retarded. :D I guess I need a hug and a medal.

I sure like the civility at THE HIGH ROAD.

D.W. Drang
February 11, 2003, 02:20 PM
But... does a company in AUSTRIA really give a rat about the US Constitution? I would suggest that they Just Don't Get It. Boycot? Who cares? "Just those Crazy Amecian Gun Nuts, and all us Euro-Weenies know what they're like..."

Jack19
February 11, 2003, 02:24 PM
The point isn't the Austrian company, or the EuroTrash, the point........is US.

WE are responsible for the Second Amendment. Us, and only us. Sure Glock is going to help screw us, but Glock is only an easy way to blame an entity, not ourselves, for the loss of our rights.

If this proposal becomes law we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Frankly, I wonder if gun owners, as a group, care enough about the Second Amendment to save it. I'm having my doubts.

treeprof
February 11, 2003, 03:06 PM
There is no legislation pending for ballistic fingerprinting. It was a hypothetical
situation.

Ever hear of S.22, the Justice Enhancement and Domestic Security Act of 2003 that was introduced in the US Senate? Read Sections 5212-5216.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:6:./temp/~c108FXTdFf:e462721:

alan
February 11, 2003, 06:17 PM
D.W. Drang wrote:



But... does a company in AUSTRIA really give a rat about the US Constitution? I would suggest that they Just Don't Get It. Boycot? Who cares? "Just those Crazy Amecian Gun Nuts, and all us Euro-Weenies know what they're like..."

Yeah, all those carzy American gun-nuts, the ones with all those disgusting, dirty DOLLARS, exactly the same ones that we would, and have sold ourselves for.

alan
February 11, 2003, 06:23 PM
Jack19:

Re your strange, but interesting suggestion: "Put down the bag of potato chips, turn off the TV, and go write your representatives regarding the Assault Weapon Ban Sunset http://www.awbansunset.com/", are you absolutely certain that you want to strain the attention, perhaps capabilities of what appears to be the average "gun owner"in this country? The poor creature might implode from lack of salt, grease and or starch. If that happened, wouldn't you feel sort of guilty?

Jack19
February 11, 2003, 06:57 PM
Alan, lol, some sacrifices will have to be made. :D Look at it this way, the corresponding drop in cholesterol might save a few.

:evil:

Glock Glockler
February 11, 2003, 07:15 PM
WE are responsible for the Second Amendment. Us, and only us.

Then perhaps we, us, and only us should call Glock and tell them to stop spewing that filth into the air. Ballistic fingerprinting is nonsense, any moron could change a barrel, firing pin, and an extractor, and Glock knows it but they are lending credence to the notion that it's a good thing. Is spreading this nonsense part of the problem or part of the solution?

"Hmmmm, well I guess if a major gun manufacturer supports it, it must be a good idea" and the idiot supports/fails to oppose the legislation.

sure Glock is going to help screw us

Then I'll screw them 10x worse, and they'd better understand that.

Frankly, I wonder if gun owners, as a group, care enough about the Second Amendment to save it. I'm having my doubts.

Here's an idea: each of you call Glock and give them hell, and then adopt 3 people in the following year and introduce them to shooting. If we all recruited 3 people to apply pressure to Congress we'd have enough juice to make sure the ban dies a quiet and permanent death.


__________________

ctdonath
February 12, 2003, 12:12 AM
Looked at from purely a business perspective: ticking off your customers is bad for the bottom line, especially when equivalent products are easily available.

Glock doesn't have to care about the 2nd Amendment per se. Glock does have to care that thousands of otherwise enthusiastic customers will simultaniously take their business elsewhere due to company policy.

Yohan
February 12, 2003, 12:15 AM
Here's my take. Glocks are ugly. End of discussion.

If you enjoyed reading about "Another Take on Glock" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!